(PDF) Supplemental Information 2: Differences in % Cover

Supplemental Information 2: Differences in % Cover Between Methods Plotted Against the Mean Estimate From Both Methods Across the Three Reef Types After Converting Photoquadrat (PQ) Estimates to Chain Point-Intercept (CPI) Ones.

doi 10.7717/peerj.8167/supp-2

Full Text

Open PDF

Abstract

Available in full text

Date

Unknown

Authors

Unknown

Publisher

PeerJ

Related search

Supplemental Information 1: Scatterplots of Original Percent Cover Obtained Using the Photoquadrat (PQ) Method vs. Values After Converting to Chain Point-Intercept (CPI) Ones for Each Benthic Component on Three Reef Types.

English

Table 2: Summary of Conclusions From the Comparisons of Percent Cover Estimates Between Chain Point-Intercept (CPI) and Photoquadrat (PQ) Methods for Six Benthic Components on the Three Reef Types in Barbados.

English

Figure 4: Differences in Percent Cover Estimates Between Methods Against the Average Percent Cover Estimated by Both Methods for Each Benthic Component Across the Three Reef Types in Barbados.

English

Figure 3: Scatterplots Showing Original Percent Cover Values Obtained Using the Chain Point-Intercept (CPI) Method vs. The Photoquadrat (PQ) Method for Each Benthic Component on the Three Reef Types.

English

Supplemental Information 4: Comparison of This Study’s Photoquadrat (PQ) Method, the GCRMN-Caribbean Level-3 PQ Method, and the Chain Point-Intercept (CPI) Method Used by the Barbados Reef Monitoring Programme (BRMP).

English

Supplemental Information 6: PQ and CPI Estimates of % Cover for Six Benthic Reef Categories.

English

Supplemental Information 5: Comparison of Observed and Converted Photoquadrat (PQ) % Cover Estimates at Each Reef Type for the Four Benthic Components for Which Differences Between Methods in % Cover Scaled With Average % Cover.

English

Point Intercept and Line Intercept Methods for Aquatic Plant Management

1999

English

Supplemental Information 2: Survey Distribution Methods.

English

Amanote Research

Supplemental Information 2: Differences in % Cover Between Methods Plotted Against the Mean Estimate From Both Methods Across the Three Reef Types After Converting Photoquadrat (PQ) Estimates to Chain Point-Intercept (CPI) Ones.

doi 10.7717/peerj.8167/supp-2

Full Text

Abstract

Date

Authors

Publisher

Related search

Supplemental Information 1: Scatterplots of Original Percent Cover Obtained Using the Photoquadrat (PQ) Method vs. Values After Converting to Chain Point-Intercept (CPI) Ones for Each Benthic Component on Three Reef Types.

Table 2: Summary of Conclusions From the Comparisons of Percent Cover Estimates Between Chain Point-Intercept (CPI) and Photoquadrat (PQ) Methods for Six Benthic Components on the Three Reef Types in Barbados.

Figure 4: Differences in Percent Cover Estimates Between Methods Against the Average Percent Cover Estimated by Both Methods for Each Benthic Component Across the Three Reef Types in Barbados.

Figure 3: Scatterplots Showing Original Percent Cover Values Obtained Using the Chain Point-Intercept (CPI) Method vs. The Photoquadrat (PQ) Method for Each Benthic Component on the Three Reef Types.

Supplemental Information 4: Comparison of This Study’s Photoquadrat (PQ) Method, the GCRMN-Caribbean Level-3 PQ Method, and the Chain Point-Intercept (CPI) Method Used by the Barbados Reef Monitoring Programme (BRMP).

Supplemental Information 6: PQ and CPI Estimates of % Cover for Six Benthic Reef Categories.

Supplemental Information 5: Comparison of Observed and Converted Photoquadrat (PQ) % Cover Estimates at Each Reef Type for the Four Benthic Components for Which Differences Between Methods in % Cover Scaled With Average % Cover.

Point Intercept and Line Intercept Methods for Aquatic Plant Management

Supplemental Information 2: Survey Distribution Methods.